Current Topic Filters

Welcome to r/technology

Vision

/r/technology is a subreddit dedicated to the discussion of all things technology. This subreddit is for technology-related submissions only, but we allow articles which are of a political nature provided they are also significantly related to technology.

Definition

Technology is the making, modification, usage, and knowledge of tools, machines, techniques, crafts, systems, and methods of organization, in order to solve a problem, improve a pre-existing solution to a problem, achieve a goal, handle an applied input/output relation or perform a specific function. (Wikipedia)*

Rules

1. Allowed Submissions

Submissions must be a technology related article or self post.

Self posts must contribute to /r/technology and foster reasonable discussion.

2. Follow the Rules of Reddit

3. Titles

Link submissions should use the article's title or a quote describing its content. They must be free of personal opinion and accurately represent the content of the article. Posts that fail to meet these criteria may be removed at moderator discretion.

4. No Image or Video Submissions

This does not include articles with supporting videos.

5. No Mobile Sites

These URLs are usually prepended with "m." or "mobile." Please link to the desktop versions of sites instead.

6. No Personal Information

No personal information or Facebook links.

7. No Petitions or Surveys

Also no crowdfunding submissions.

Transparency

Reforms

The moderators of this subreddit are dedicated to transparency and building trust with the community. /r/technology is currently undergoing reform to increase moderator transparency and openness. Currently implemented reforms:

Look at Steam. Look at how I can conveniently download almost every game released in the last decade. Look at how I own the license to that product for life. Look at how it keeps track of everything I've ever purchased, and allows me to redownload it again. Look at how I can access my media from any computer I want. Look at how it provides generally lower, competitive prices. Look at how it constantly offers sales on new, classic, and unknown titles. Look at how Steam promotes small independent developers.

Piracy is a service problem.

Edit: I never said Steam was perfect. I just think it's one of the better existing examples of how to do digital distribution well.

My dad has worked at the WB as well as other companies like it and I will try to explain their logic:

The biggest reason for Warner Brothers' lack of a steam like system for movies is that the current system has been doing VERY well making money with their current system. Especially recently, which is probably why they are resisting change, and will be able to effectively do so for the foreseeable future (this is due to their massive inventory). Also Warner Brothers isn't to blame, It's the way that the U.S. economy functions: higher profits = higher stock prices. Keep in mind that I know you may not agree with their business model, but I'm just explaining how it works and the results.

The reason why Warner Brothers holds back movies is because other companies don't have the money to pay for the movies. For example take Netflix, if they could they would buy every movie Warner Brothers has to offer, but they have a budget. Also when one company "buys" a movie or TV show, it is actually only a lease for 3 to 5 years, so it becomes hard to build a complete inventory. Netflix continuously has to rebuy its old inventory as well as purchase new releases. Warner Brothers has also recently stepped up its prices (for certain buyers) which is most likely the reason for the Netflix price jump.

Now you might also be wondering why doesn't Warner Brothers make their own steam like inventory selling system? Well the bottom line is that people will only view movies X amount of times, and having movies / shows too available kills their resell value. By resale I mean that the WB sells their productions to other networks, for example AMC. This is where a lot of money is made (and is actually the primary source of revenue for TV shows, I believe). Customers in the end will pay higher prices for DVDs, and not having a massive distribution hub means the movies are less watched and therefore more desired by a network looking to buy them. Network buyers also demand exclusivity rights so that Warner Brothers wouldn't be able to sell the movies even if they wanted to. As of right now, the way the majority of people view content has it so the WB makes more money through networks than it would through the individual.

tl;dr: Warner Brother's system is effectively geared to make profits, and although it is not the best for the customer, it does very well to bring the company money.

side note: copyrights last too long and older movies should be available to the public. Copyrighting wasn't originally made to last forever.

Edit: spelling, clarification, and general editing, I got excited to see a topic I knew about and wrote way too fast.

I think while being true, that is beside the point. What that means in the long term is that WB is opening itself up to disruptive competition from someone who is willing to make the changes the Op suggests. When someone else does do it, WB will be behind the game.

Some companies have survived that situation, and some have not. Kodak anyone?

Great point. I believe they will be fine since they own so much IP, and have such immense talent and expertise in producing movies people will pay to see. But DVD/Bluray sales and distribution is a non-trivial part of their business, and that will continue to drag down the studio financially the longer they wait to properly serve the growing digital market.

Basically, if the movie is to easily & cheaply available, channels like AMC won't pay huge royalties to broadcast them (because people already own them). And at least currently, WB is making a killing no matter how many people on the internet are pissed at them. So they have little motivation to change and risk alienating tv broadcasters.

Edit: I use google and android almost exclusively, and since Google opened Google Music, I am pretty sure that every new song I have I bought from there. Make it easier to buy than pirate, and you have every customer.

Sing us a song you're the piano man... oh Billy Idol, you were referencing my name. It is easy enough to buy music, and Google has been doing some nice sales. I have never seen anything like this out of the MPAA. I can pay $4 to watch a movie for 24 hours. Imagine if people had that same mindset about their music right now.

Edit: just to clarify, both suck, but the music industry is wayyyyyy ahead of the movie industry.

I like that. Amazon has me on that. Obviously I can't pirate cables yet, but they make it so easy to do legally, that why bother doing it the wrong way. Google is almost there now that they have Google Music.

netflex allows me to watch movies in 1 click and i dont mind paying the monthly fee. In fact, i wouldnt mind doubling or tripling of that fee if it meant being able to see all the movies and shows im able to pirate now.

Wait... so WB is making a killing right now? I thought piracy was destroying the industry and losing jobs! How the hell can a company on the one had lobby for new laws like SOPA 'cus of how badly piracy is effecting them and on the other hand be holding back films from rental 'cus they are making a killing?

Ya but the truth of it is that it's really a billionaire hunting you down screaming that you stolen from him because you may or may not have given him $10 if the circumstance was different.

My point was simply that they trade on the idea that the piracy is destroying the industry and yet they are currently still making money and not scrambling for anything that might keep them in business. The facts and figures they where throwing around to back up their claim of damage to the industry where thrown out recently. It was found that they either where based a study down about actual counter fitting of products or where, for the most part, simply made up and exaggerated. Since then they've being unable to provide replacement figures and yet they are still going on about this.

It's just mind boggling to me that it does not stop and make people think "hang on a second, something's wrong here" when they act like this.

It's called "preservation"; WB may be fully aware that this can't last forever on current trends, and fears that, without a SOPA-style law, it won't get anything on DVDs. Even though Torrentfreak can convincingly show that the movie business is actually doing well right now, the DVD market has collapsed and it is not being replaced by Blu Rays and Downloads. Even before inflation they are making less money than before. WB is under the perception that this can be somehow reversed.

I'm not so confident. Even ignoring piracy, the fact is I'm not interested in rebuying a movie when my DVD works perfectly well. I like HD and all that, but I prefer to stream or just watch the dang DVD I already own.

What he's referring to is a series of studies that WB and the other studios did in the late 80s that said, essentially, "For every day X that a movie is exclusive to a medium, we make 1/X more profit". The particulars meant that they maximized their profit if the movie were, at each point, exclusive to one medium, ranked from most expensive to least.

The point at which 1/X was no longer 'worth' it was a period of 30-45 days, and so what you saw was 30 days in theaters, then 30 days in hotel pay-per-view, then 30 days on "Hits Movie" channels, then 30 days available as home video, then finally (through collusion with blockbuster) a movie was available as a rental.

The problem with this logic is that the consumer mindset and distribution chain have completely changed in the intervening years - Delivery of the final product is no longer a material expense. Movie studios are still making the expected profits off of releases, without having realized that their success is mostly due to growing population and falling distribution costs; In actuality, they haven't kept up with inflation. Meanwhile, the consumer is perfectly willing to pirate for product when and where they want it, and many will buy the movies anyway, to assuage their feelings of piratical guilt.

Why do they get their panties in a bunch over piracy then? If it's a drop in the bucket and it's not profitable enough to actually sell the fucking thing to the people pirating WHY THE FUCK DO THEY CARE?!?

It sounds to me like you just told me every single one of the big wigs and every entertainment lawyer are evil fuck faces. If piracy means nothing to them then the only reason to go around suing old ladies and children is because you like ruining people's lives.

They can't have their cake and eat it too. That's just bullshit. I know the market supports them but I now give absolutely zero shits about entertainment piracy. It seems to me the only companies even attempting to meet the consumer in the middle is the video game industry.

It's the worst form of cognitive dissonance. Just trying to think like that hurts my fucking brain. I guess you just have to be a sociopath for any of this to seem remotely reasonable.

This is the same mistake the NFL is making. Broadcast media in general is a dying medium, especially among young consumers (read: people with a lot of spending still to do). The vast majority of piracy is due to the lack of a palatable online pay per view option or similar digital distribution medium with prices people will pay. This artificial scarcity for there sake of milking a dying technology - broadcast TV - is the primary cause of piracy, and worse, the consequences have painted the recording industry the color of fascism in the eyes of an entire generation.

That'd be a great thing to study. All I have is my own flawed annecdotal experience. Ever since I started using Steam I've been buying more games, and pirating far far less. I value certain companies more now than I did a few years ago.

In a world where there is NOTHING you can do to stop piracy, ensuring a positive consumer experience is the best thing you can do to create brand loyalty and protect your product.

Pretty much. Way I see it, a perfect highlight of the piracy/ service issue comes up with Cave Story.

Game's free to play, and has been ported to just about every OS and device on the planet. There's no reason to buy the game. Then Cave Story+ came out. The same game I love, but with the ability to choose between updated and original sounds and graphics? And new features? I bought that in a heartbeat.

I don't even have a computer and I still buy steam games all the time because they're usually really cheap when on sale and I know that when I eventually buy a computer they will all still be there waiting for me :)

You have to be a little careful. Games, more than most software, do become unplayable as hardware and OSes advance. If you're not expecting to have a computer for 5 or 10 years, you might want to hold off a bit. :-)

This is how I see things in people I know: For people who don't have steam, they don't want it and pirate. As soon as they get steam (for whatever reason), they see sales and are encouraged to buy. There comes a point where the user sees a deal that they can't pass up, and enters their credit card information. After that, many sales clicks occur, and the user generally forgets about piracy (for games that are available on steam). Keep up the good work, Valve.

Not a popular opinion on reddit but this is why I would never consider paying for a game on Steam (or any other service). If I'm gonna pay for a game, I want the installation files on my hard drive, completely free of DRM.

I'm an contractor cum indie dev working toward his first release, so I've had to consider these issues from the other side of argument a bit.

The first thing I have to admit is that money makes me stupid. Put 6-figures on the table and I'm about as mentally collected as if I had taken a field hockey stick to the head. Make it 7-figures and I'll probably agree to push my mother off a bridge and lead an invasion of Poland in a nice floral print dress while hoisting a banner of Hitler. Don't misunderstand and attribute this to greed. It's just that hard to think when that much money is within my reach.

With my first title, my goal is to move 10,000 units. At these scales, piracy is worth nothing more than a wistful sigh. In fact, the DRM on Steam and the App Store allow me to sell non-DRMed versions through my website at a higher margin. (E.g., $1+2% per transaction instead of 30% for the App Store and ??% for Steam.)

When companies are trying to move orders of magnitudes more titles (e.g., 10,000,000), things are a little different. The number of copies of Halo sold to only replace lost, stolen, or damaged disks is larger than my entire target, each with a higher retail price. That's right. The scratched disks, alone, would have me looking for a nice pair of heels to go with my muumuu and swastika armband.

Look at me, someone who has pirated a game once or twice (mostly because i lost the CD, and needed a copy to reinstall) who bought around 8 games on steam around the holidays when they had sales with $2.50-$5 games. I get a game from my grandmom every year and activate on steam and i proceed to lose the disk a month later, NO WORRIES! You activated it on steam, just re-download that bitch! Also, i had to buy Starcraft twice because i lost my disk, though blizzard now has a similar service that allows you to download any previously purchased game at any time.

Former Blizz GM here... preaching to the choir. HOWEVER in the case of steam as an example... if i buy 100 games at thousands in value... to have valve LOCK MY WHOLE ACCOUNT refusing me access to sofware i bought legally. games that are not a membership... that are offline. (skyrim is a good example) then how is this the right way to treat customers?

in the case of wow or swotr this would be different as its a membership that gets banned. you are no longer paying for the cost of the game once banned. If you bought skyrim and get steam banned then you are out the game fully that you had a single cost with no additional cost associated.

... and how you have absolutely no control should Valve decide to cut you off from your games. You are eternally subservient to Valve not being purchased by a larger company and fucking all of you people over.

I like valve. But i'm not naive enough to think that a corporate purchase or takeover could ever be off the table completely.

When I was younger, I used to pirate games because I didn't have money to buy them. But since I got a job, I tend to stop pirating things, then I found out about steam, I stopped pirating completely. Now whenever I want to play new games, I just go on steam and get them. I even buy games that I used to pirate because I know it would support the company that make them and more important, steam makes it so easy to buy those games.

I remember when I put a DVD in my player and it started showing trailers. I was like:"Hmmm, this should not be happening." Then I realized that I was just not used to it because I usually play directly from a HDD, hadn't used a DVD in like 4 or 5 years.

That is kind of weird. I think we got Bridesmaids from a redbox and we were able to watch the unrated version without an issue. Still, that is pretty shitty that they would make a disk like that. "You spent money to watch this, now spend more money!"

The 'Rental Copy' DVDs crack me up because 9 times out of 10 the "Special Features" on the standard DVD release usually consists of trailers for other movies they want you to buy. You usually don't even get Deleted Scenes without spending even more for the Deluxe Special Collector's Edition(!) these days.

That is easy. Because Fox takes the time to prepare rental versions of their movies while Warner Bros are dead set against allowing rentals in the first place. They can't prevent the rental companies from doing their thing so they do their best to not cooperate. They are behaving like little kids who refuse to eat lunch because the Kool-aid is the wrong color. They may be enjoying that tantrum, but they will lose in the end.

I had previously thought that the major movie labels played a major hand in the downfall of mom n' pop video stores, now I am absolutely certain. Those stores often offered an incredible selection, reasonable prices, and excellent customer service. What do we get now? Mega-chain nonsense with 100 copies of transformers 14, but not a single copy of Cube or Seven Samurai. And for the low price of $10/week, with no option to rent for less time, because everybody needs a week to watch a 2 hour movie.

Actually, I don't think Hollywood wants to kill Netflix at all. However, Netflix basically contracts with the major studios for a fixed rate. Netflix has become immensely popular, and is the preferred mode of consumption for many people (myself included).
The studios charged Netflix a higher rate in recent negotiations simply because they're delivering far more movies than they used to. Netflix is replacing the corner video store, and the studios are adjusting their prices accordingly.

The latest move is inconvenient for some customers, but makes good sense. People have been screaming at studios to reduce the wait time between the theatrical release and the DVD, and they've largely done so.

The current policy is just an example of "windowing" -- which maximizes profits by gradually releasing a product into lower paying markets. Theater tickets ares more profitable than a blu-ray sale, which is more profitiable than a NetFlix rental. That's marketing.

I also really resent everyone using "piracy" to force the studios to sell ever-more-cheaply "or else". That's the kind of behavior that gets laws like SOPA passed. If you don't like the terms the studios are offering then by all means, don't watch the stupid movie. Boycott. Protest. But pirating the movie is just going to end up ruining the internet for all of us.

Well we have a copy of Gleaming the Cube! But yes, you are right stores like mine have ate up all the little guys. But our membership is free and a new release is $2.79/night. So that's not too bad. We get them the day of release.

If someone at WB is reading this this is all they will need to shut the store down. Walk into a Family Video find a WB movie that they have not sold for rental. Rent it and sue Family Video out of business.

Umn, I am about 100% sure that this is in no way breaking the license of the film in any manner. If you were showing it on a screen like a movie theater it is different as it is a public and not a private showing.

An executive decision to keep me pirating. I actually have been making a concerted effort to buy more media lately, but fucked if I am going to support these retards. I'll stick to paying for books and games, and stealing movies and big name songs.

I bought 4 new vinyl records and a cd tonight. In my time visiting friends and family out of state I probably amassed more than I can actually take back. Music is something I consume constantly, and will listen to more than once. Movies I only watch once or twice (way down the line) which is why Netflix is perfect. I would never buy a DVD, because I don't get use out of it really, but I always have music playing out of my speakers or headphones and even if I am not listening to the album, I can display the cover as art (for LPs at least). If the movie isn't on Netflix or in theaters, it is likely to get pirated and then not even watched when it finally is released on Netflix. Games you put more than 1.5 hours into, music and books are the same. Movies are for such a limited time, and have such a terrible distribution method.

This is so dumb. If i can't get access to something i usually WILL forget about it completely unless it's something i PROFOUNDLY wanted to see, but even then i will never buy a DVD. I see a movie once and that's enough for me, i don't need to own it because i don't feel the need to ever watch it again. Even my favorite movie i wouldn't want to own on DVD (even though it's on TNT ALL the time (It's the shawshank redemption)) People need to look to steam and follow.

It's idiotic. When I want to buy a movie, I know it instantly and will buy it when I can. But if I've waited for a movie to come out on DVD just to watch it, it doesn't matter if I have to wait 6 months, or 6 months+80days, I'm just going to rent it. They are just delaying the money they make from renting now.

They really need service where I can buy movies online with delay of say 1-2 weeks from movie theatre premiere. Get your profits by sheer number of sales. I know that I will pay for a copy of movie that is DRM free.
Get rid of dvd or bluray packaging and let me download everything in 1080p. I will be more than happy.

Look at steam, they've changed gaming industry in Russia. We (in Russia) still have shops where you can buy pirated games/software for 3-4bucks (new releases). But most of my friends already moved to steam, because they couldn't be bothered to move their asses to go to the shop and price difference in Steam vs Shop is not that much.

Same with me, I can pay for a movie, not an issue. BUT you are pushing me to dress, go to the shop, then watch your unskippable ads, fuck that shit, I'm lazy. Why would I do that if I have usenet/torrents access and I can get any movie I want in less than 15 minutes in 1080p quality. I come home find movie I want, press download, go cook. Hm food is done? Turn on projector watch movie, go sleep. Movie store? fuck that shit, you are not getting my money unless you adapt. Some say my approach is morally wrong but whatever, movies industry has to change.

You're absolutely right. Digital services are the only way I get my movies/games/music nowadays. If I can't find it legally online, I pirate it. I've only been to the cinema a handful of times in the last year or two. If they would let me watch cinema releases at home on the internet, I'd pay for them.

People are obviously looking for low cost or subscription based streaming, so the free market is providing it illegally. At the drop of the hat, people will support the legal methods that provides what they want.

I think there were talks of TV services releasing movies on PPV that were still in theaters, but charging something like 40-50 bucks for a 24 hour viewing.

I wish that the film industry would just make movies and release them for download (full hd or 3d) at like $40. After a few weeks lower it to around $30, and then after a year or so let it sit at $10-15, and then after 2 years drop it to around $2-5.

Edit: I just realized that this was reasonable and would make but the consumer happy and the MPAA money, so it isn't going to ever happen.

"if people can't rent a video legally, they're suddenly more likely to pony up many times the amount to buy the full DVD"

Well if their target demographic is my parents, then that's exactly what's going to happen. I know everyone here could respond to that situation by "other" means, but we aren't collectively all that much of the market, or at least WB doesn't seem to think so.

Nah, my parents will just watch something else they can get on netflix (or a movie they can watch on tv, or just a tv show, or read a book, or play some games, or just surf the internet). Seriously, we have so many different options for entertainment and media now....

I'm 41 and am regularly surprised when speaking with my cousins in their early-mid 20's who have zero understand of their computers, torrents or the internet in general. For the most part, they've abandoned computers and now use their smart phones to do everything they do online (read: Facebook, Twitter). I thought that the university-going group of people would understand the internet more intuitively as they've grown up with it, but if my cousins (and their friends) are the standard, they have no idea how to access digital media without someone holding their hands.

My parents as well. They have an entire shelf consisting of $15-$20 DVD's that they've watched maybe twice each. Blu-rays? Well time to start all over again! WB's wet dream.

I remember bringing home a media center with a pirated season of their favorite show on it. Every episode had perfect quality video (no commercials, damn good quality, etc) and the DVD's weren't even fucking released yet (even though the season has been over for months). They were amazed.

The entertainment industry, more specifically the MPAA et al, are not only going full retard. They're now ramming themselves full speed into a brick wall. Over and over again. It's like watching an accident in slow motion. And then it ends up on some news network and they just keep showing it over and over on the replay. With commentary.

Do they even FATHOM how many of their movies are available on the internet BEFORE they even show up in theatres? Also, where the hell do people think those leaks are coming from? The sky? I'd say from the companies themselves.

Once again: Pirate copy = Fast, Available NOW, No gimicks, No region encoding, No Anti-skip, No condecending "don't steal this" bullshit when you've paid for it (as in the retail copy), and most importantly FREE! Absolutely free. Why on earth would people purchase movies when all of the above are NOT what you get for being a loyal customer?

I have a movie library (retail purchased) with well over 100 movies in it. I gave away my VHS collection which had about 150 retail (new) purchased movies. You tell me. What's my incentive to keep purchasing these fucking things when I keep getting a slap in the face? The latest load of which are these new "environmental" cases which are missing half the fucking case for the cutout. No inserts. No print on the disc, just the disc. That's it. WHAT THE FUCK AM I PAYING FOR?!

Man I don't get why pirates can provide such brilliant services and movie industry can't.

If you get usenet accont and install SickBeard and CouchPotato, you are sorted for life. SickBeard tracks my tv series and gets new episodes 2-3 hours after they come out (and in Finland they usually released after year-2) CouchPotato tracks all my movies. Movie out on BluRay? I bet you I will have it in next 24 hours.

It is in my house. And I'd gladly pay more for it. But I'm not farting around with a dozen different programs that require a dozen different accounts to access content. And I'm sure as hell not paying $4 to "rent" a movie on my computer.

If it's not on Netflix, I get it from Usenet or I just don't watch it.

This. This is also the reason I didn't understand why everyone was getting upset when they were going to split into 2 halves, I don't even bother with the dvds and I'd gladly pay double to expand the collection.

It was less about that they did it and more about how they did it. Perceived value is a big thing anyway, and then Netflix tried to sell it like they were doing their customers a favor. It was a PR mess. A blog I follow suggested they should have seen this coming when they first introduced the streaming service and made it clear that it was only a free addition for a limited time. Then splitting the two would have been more palatable.

As a portuguese where the iTunes Store doesn't even sell or rent movies or TV series, and something like Netflix or Amazon on demand or Blockbuster or Redbox is just a dream very far away, it boggles me even more

Yes, Warners is really pushing their own online streaming, and they have a bunch of obscure films that are only available on their website.

I'm a movie lover and there's a few titles at Warners I want to see, but I have yet to pay for any of them because I've always got something waiting on Netflix.

This is the real problem for movie studios - not piracy. We keep moving toward a world where every movie is available at the click of a button. The problem becomes choosing what to watch. Unlike cable TV, where it seems like there's never anything to watch, with services like Netflix I have a hard time choosing what to play next. There are too many good options, and there's nothing at the local movie theatre that looks more interesting than my Netflix queue. The last thing I need is more movies, unless they're going to be awesome.

I always look at Netflix at first like there's nothing to watch (it is indeed filled with a lot of crap movies and shows). With Netflix's back catalog though, I always find a movie I want to see and nearly always love it.

The last one I watched was High Noon (1952). Never would I have discovered that through other movie distribution styles, and that would have been a shame - it's a fantastic movie.

Sorry for the spam, but i feel very strongly on this. I can't tell you how many games i've lost or destroyed over the years. I paid for them, they are mine and i deserve to be able to play them whenever i like. At one time I had lost/destroyed my SC and SC brood war disks as well as my Diablo 2 and expansion. All i had left was the CD keys. Blizzard had a new feature that allowed you to put game codes in and add them to an online list. I don't know about you, but hard drive real estate can get a bit tight so i'm constantly installing and uninstalling games to make room for new games, or games i'd like to play again. This is where steam really shines.

That's a valid complaint, sure. Then again, movies and music perhaps isn't something you need to have all the time, and could reasonably exist on a separate higher-capacity USB harddrive. Those, again, are incredibly cheap nowadays, and you could easily get 1-2 terabytes even without the need for extra power supplies.

I used to buy a lot of DVDs; I have about 300. But I haven't bought one in over three years, and I probably won't ever buy another one. I don't have room for physical media anymore, and I don't like to deal with it when I have to move.

I've never pirated/downloaded anything illegally, ever.

I also haven't gone to a movie in over two years: fuck your ticket prices. Here's the thing: I was able to live before the new Batman or Iron Man or whatever it is came out; I was able to still draw breath even though I didn't see it opening day; and if I never see it because it isn't available in a way that is reasonably priced and convenient for me to see it, I'll still live.

Nothing you do will ever make me buy another DVD. And all your ever lengthening waiting periods do is increase the likelihood that I will completely forget about it and go watch MST3K reruns on You Tube.

How about this, Warner Bros., if I can't even RENT a movie now until 2 months after it's released on DVD - then I'm going to write off all your future releases as trash. 0 thumbs up. 0/5 stars. I'm not going to be gypped into buying a ticket or the DVD for a shitty movie. I don't care HOW MANY reviewers you pay off - they are hacks anyway.

I feel like a big problem is (well for me anyway) is that movies these days are so godawful, i really don't want to spend $15 dollars on a theater ticket or $20 on a bluray when the movie will most likely be a pile of shit. i can wait for it to be on redbox.

Denying me the affordability and convenience to rent a movie isn't going to make me buy the DVD. Why don't they do that - why don't they simply just stop allowing their movies to be rented, so that they can watch their profits plummet when no one buys the DVD.

If I didnt' see it in theaters, then I rent a movie before I buy a DVD. It's like a car dealership. You go to see the car (read a movie review), you take it for a test drive (rent a movie), you buy the car (buy the DVD director's cut extended edition).

I didn't even know Harold and Kumar was out yet. I just found out they make another one and decided to give it a try. Added it straight from IMDB to Couch Potato. It found it in under a minute. Sent it to SABnzbd+. I made dinner. 10 minutes later I started the movie.

They're delaying rental availability after the immediate release so that during the initial release hype customers will only be able to buy the disk. Many of the geeks here probably would just resort to pirating it or forgetting about it until later, but for the more average person this may actually work. A rental may only bring in $2, but a sale will bring ing about $15. If they can get just 1 out of 7 potential rentals to turn into a sale then they'll break even. Turn that into 2 out of 7 potential rentals turning into a sale and you've doubled income.

Does it make strict logical sense for people to do that? No. But most marketing and sales efforts capitalize on irrational human behavior. The techniques employed elsewhere in other industries still target the same human behavior and use the same techniques to drive more higher priced transactions. This isn't at all unique to WB or even movies in general. It's just businessmen making a business move that they hope will bring in more money.

I know it works in some cases. I've seen several cases where people bought a DVD they knew they wouldn't watch more than a couple times simply because it wasn't available for rent.

I'll need actual data to confirm that they're losing money by doing this. It may be a jerk move, but I'm skeptical that it actually causes them a net loss. FWIW, a lot of anti-media company arguments confuse these issues: They get so enraged over the company being a jerk and doing things the wrong way they confuse that for an argument as to why the company will make less money. At a minimum it isn't a clear cut as most of the comments in this thread assume it is, we've only heard from a small subset of the consumer base and none of the people who actually count the dollars.

I think a lot of movies you want to watch but don't want to own. You know you'll probably only watch that movie the once or even not finish watching it if it isn't that good, you don't want to pay a high price for that.

I believe that this is a large part of the problem. The whole 'piracy' issue is not really about piracy. It is about a group of aging marketroids, legal types and analysts who no longer understand their industry desperately clinging to their overpaid executive roles. Admitting they no longer understand the industry means giving up their cushy jobs, giving up their reputations and possibly a chink of their golden parachutes.

So instead, to keep feeling relevant, they con the shareholders into believing the consumer is to blame and put on a big dog and pony show for the media (in which they also have a hefty stake) while throwing billions into ineffective anti piracy technology and legislation.

WB also refuse to allow CBS to show full episodes of the mentalist on their website after they aired. That's not going to make me Buy the DVDs, it just pisses me off and I go find a new show to like.

They also believe that if they could prevent piracy, everybody would just buy the 1000 movies they downloaded. Most people I know downloading movies and songs are just digital hoarders taking pride in having lots of stuff. If you take away their free illegal downloads, I can guarantee these people will not purchase tons of movies/music. They'll just go without and buy the ones they really really like (or find other ways of getting them cheaper/free). Besides, most "downloaders" I know still buy their favorite movies. Bill Maher is an idiot if he thinks piracy hurts the sale of his movie. If something's not worth buying, people will just rent it, borrow it, or download it. Taking these options away won't make people buy more movies if the movies aren't worth buying.

The heads of these labels and companies don't have a clue. I bet not one of these execs making these decisions is under the age of 35. They have no clue how to challenge piracy (or legal rentals) with a better business model. I'd pay a little bit to rent/stream the mentalist from a WB's website, but I sure as hell won't pay $20-30 to watch a season.

Its like watching Wile E. Coyote trying to catch the Road Runner. No matter how many times he's had something blow up in his face, crush every bone in his body, or knock him off a cliff he'll try try again...

Maybe back when there wasn't as much media holding our attention maybe that worked. Today I forget about a movie 15 minutes after I see the preview. If the studio is smart, I heard about the movie at a time when I could make plans to see it at the theater or add it to my Netflix queue. If the studio is not smart, the movie will likely never come to my attention again.

How to procure a DVD:
Step 1. Get up, walk outside, get in your car. 2 minutes max.
Step 2. Drive to the store. Takes around 5-30 minutes depending on where you live and where you're going.
Step 3. Go in to the store, dig through their racks hoping to find the DVD you want. If you find it you take it to the the register (after waiting in line) and spending $10-20 on a single movie you'll probably only watch once. This could take hours.
Step 4. Drive home
Step 5. Put in DVD player and watch.

or

Step 1. Log on to Amazon.com or whatever site you want.
Step 2. Add to cart and spend $10-20 and wait for the next two+ days.
Step 3. Hope you're home for the UPS guy.
Step 4. Receive the DVD and put it into your DVD player and watch it.

or

How to pirate a movie:
Step 1. Log on to piracy site.
Step 2. Find and download movie.
Step 3. Watch the movie.

How movie companies don't remake steam amazes me. They could all create a company in collusion with each other and control distribution. So long as it gives control of the file to the owner of it and they charge a fair price (read: much less than they think their shitty fucking movie is worth) people will flock to it.

I've never stood in line to buy or rent a movie. "Holding back" to me just means they're delaying the release dates. I'm not going to buy any more physical media if I can help it, so if it's not available to rent, it's simply not available to me; I'm not going to rush out and buy it. I don't track release dates of films and count down when they'll be available for me to give money to the distributor/studio.

Why would I even buy a normal DVD these days? That means I would have to spend $30 on a blu-ray that's just going to have neutered special features and have a "better" version released later. No thanks on both a $30 movie and having the completed product. $11 to watch a movie in a theater once? No thanks again. I can't even tell you the last new movie I watched because of these prices.

The comments are gold under the article. We have entered some kind of perfect storm of stupidity when it comes to movie studio leadership. Literally everyone knows what should happen but the few people who can make it happen.

The latest detail, which came out last week, is that one of WB's new conditions with its deal with Netflix isn't just that the rentals are delayed by 56 days, but that they won't even be able to put the delayed movie in their "Wanted" queue until 28 days before it's actually available.

Under the companies' previous agreement, users could add discs to their queues even before they went on sale.

Warner executives apparently believed that policy made it easier for consumers to wait, confident that the discs would arrive eventually.

Consumers will have wait until March 6 to add the film to their queues and until April 3 to get it in the mail.

What's amazing about this policy is that it seems to provide the exact opposite incentives of what WB should want.

Now, they won't even have that, making it even more likely they seek the movie out via unauthorized means.

When I first started to make money out of college, I started a DVD collection. For several years, I bought DVDs. But I've stopped, because it's silly. I'm only going to watch most movies 1-3 times in my life.

Look... everyone on here is saying how dumb this is, because everyone on here knows how easy it is to pirate. But this is a very tiny sample.

Sure, this is a stupid long-term strategy, and it's annoying as fuck to movie-lovers, but the VAST majority of people couldn't pirate a movie if a life was at stake; many people I know (parents, aunts, uncles) can't even figure out iTunes and Netflix, let alone uTorrent and pirate bay. So this strategy probably does increase sales to some degree, but won't be useful for too long.

And (I can't believe I sound like I'm defending this fuck) for most people, a disc is the most convenient way to own a movie right now. It may not be the easiest way for us to get a movie, but for most people, it is. And so if they buy the disc rather than rent, hell, how many copies of the Big Momma's House BluRays have been sold?

A few days ago, we got on a Jurassic Park kick. I searched Netflix to see they only had it on DVD. We only have the streaming package. So what'd we do? We bought the movies USED! The studio STILL didn't get their money. I know it's not WB, but the idea is the same. If they would have had it on Netflix, they would have gotten a piece of my money.

This is so true. I grew up in the 80's and if it came down to it, I would just do what I did then: see only what I thought was going to be great in the movie theater or wait till it came on TV.

When I was older and could afford rentals, I rented a movie now and then, but that didn't stop me from going to the movies or watching shitty ones on TV...

I never rented potentially shitty movies and never actually bought a film on video or DVD, except for concert videos, because I could rent a decent film whenever I wanted and I'm not one to watch a film 100 times over.

I really cannot comprehend the thought process. I have Verizon FIOS in my home. They give you the option of 'buying' videos. The theory being that you can watch it whenever, even when it's no longer on demand. They also offer 'Flexview' which gives you the option of watching it on different devices.

So, the wife "buys" my kids "Elmo Saves Christmas" or some shit. It's $9.99 to buy, but now we own it right? Wrong - I attempted to download it to my IPad several times. Error - error - error.

The I get a message that "Due to Licensing Restrictions this movie will not be watchable for a period of 12- 18 months." WTF? How can they tell me I bought it? If I bought it I own it,I can watch it whenever the fuck I want.

I just think that somewhere they are hoping that My kid will want to watch it, not be able to watch it, then I will pony up more money to "own it again" - OR I could ya know pirate it, then watch it.

From my shopping experience this past Xmas I don't think you'll have anywhere left to buy movies soon. The record stores are gone, blockbuster is gone and even Walmart seems to have very little shelf space devoted to DVDs.

If they would just make a mechanism where I can pay a one time fee to X record label/Y Movie studio for the perpetual right to a song or movie, I would gladly pay it. The reason I "Pirate" is that I am far to lazy to spend hours and hours ripping CD's/DVD's for stuff that I have paid for, a few titles more than once (Lost, stolen, damages, format change). If I could just download them directly from a label or movie studio (in what ever format I wanted, forever..prevents bit rot), it would save a lot of people a lot of work and have a more accurate reflection of an artists popularity. They should be paid a reasonable percentage of the sales they generate, encouraging people to purchase music and/or movies and the artist to keep it's fan base by writing more music and or movies that they like (recording costs being paid first). Also, the cost associated with single MP3 or movie encourages piracy as well. Who is really going to spend $25.00 for a movie that sucks, yet they keep releasing them? Think of how many Twilight movies are going to end up in landfills. If I could buy the perpetual rights, in what ever format I chose/needed, to a movie for the cost of a rental, I would be more inclined to just purchase it. Even better have the ability to buy Hard copies too (at a slightly inflated cost). I think single MP3s, again with perpetual access, should be cheaper than they are, again encouraging people to buy vs "steal". If you have proof of a previous purchase (like a CD or DVD) you should be automatically given a digital copy as well (I should only have to pay for the right to a song once god damnit). Just think about how much it would improve the quality of music and movies, smaller, lesser known artist would still be able to profit from a small fan base that grows over time. Indie bands and movie studios would be able to reach broader markets....it's a win win for everyone involved.

Enforcement of this is pretty easy. Files that you own would be digitally signed with an identity assigned to you. If copies of your files are found to be in public distribution, you are fined. Movies and music files that are missing signatures are required to be deleted from public facing servers upon notice (DMCA Take down), violators are fined. (Of course this is flawed but if you make it stupid easy and cheap to get it in the first place it really should not be an issue to begin with.)

Oh boy, this movie looks mildly interesting, let me rent it so I can pay a small amount and still enjoy it while supporting the people behind the film! What's this? I can't rent it? My only options are to pay an exorbitant retail fee for a bare-bones DVD/Blu-Ray or download it illegally free of charge? I guess I'll just pirate it, not sure if it's worth $30, I might not even like it.

I recently wanted to watch Ip Man and live in Australia. I tried calling 6 video stores, Checked our "on demand" section of our cable service and even went to the local retail place to buy it (guess it the american equivalent of best buy). No one had it. I tried multiple times to buy it and rent it from a legal source, so how the hell else do they expect me to watch the damn thing?

Also sucks butt that we don't have anything like netflix (to my knowledge) down here either. Seems whatever service we do eventually get it's always the bastardized retarded cousin of the american one with different and less content for more expensive prices.

i think they want you to pirate them more, gives them more of a stand when the next anti-piracy bill comes through, when they have lost millions in revenue. I would just ignore their product till they smarten up.

You know this hasnt even been pushing me to piracy, it's just pushing me to forget to watch Warner brother movies. When they release an advertising campaign for the blu-ray release I go oh yeah I need to see that, if it's not on Netflix I just think well I better add it when it is, and then I forget and never see it. I guess it's their loss. So far they have been on Netflix but still have the wait time, I just have a bunch of movies of theirs on the bottom of my queue that I'll never get to. And now they are going to prevent you from even adding it to your queue for the first 28 days!? They are insane, I don't have that long of a memory span.

To be fair, I imagine Warner Bros loses a metric @%#$-ton of money from people renting movies that are out on loan non-stop via Netflix or Redbox compared to what we used to do 10 years ago. I do all of my renting from Redbox these days and can't help but feel bad when I enjoy a movie I missed in theaters. I'm not sure what chunk of my $1 went to the people who actually made the movie, but I imagine it isn't much.

But this is exactly where there is opportunity for Warner Bros to compete with these services. If I was given the opportunity to rent at $1 or buy online DRM free at $4, it would give me serious pause.

I think the studios are going out of their way to encourage video piracy, because that way they get money from people who otherwise wouldn't pay for DVDs. Most people who are willing to pay to buy or rent DVDs are also willing to wait until they're legally available, whereas people who illegally download usually just go without stuff if they can't get it for free. The studio can extort many times more money from nabbed file sharers than they would have received in sales. It's kind of like an early-adapter market.